Positive Reasons for Leaving the EU

[SpringingIntoAction]

To regain our sovereignty and self-determination, which means the right to:

1. Make our own laws to suit our country

1. Trade freely throughout the world

1. Control our own borders

1. Raise our own taxes

1. Defend our own interests

without the interference of the EU

Lol, no, best friend - the one in French social housing - is definitely British. She even gets to vote in the referendum!

Lol, no, best friend - the one in French social housing - is definitely British. She even gets to vote in the referendum!

Excellent news. I met someone the other day who voted in "Sarkozy's referendum", while he lived in France. A lot of the LEAVE voters have lived in France, Spain or Italy.

thats good Mistri but I still think there needs to be priority given to people already living her otherwise we will just concrete over all our green spaces at this rate particularly if the more impoverished nations join.

springing hope your acquaintance is french, or he committed electoral fraud ...

woodhill there are places in the UK with a housing surplus (my nephew lives in a Midlands city where the council famously sold off surplus homes for £1). The issue isn't really immigration, but regional policy.

In London it is immigration and granted there are other factors such as overseas investors or divorcees possibly.

woodhill I stayed at a hotel near Earls Court station last year, in a residential street, and was astonished at how few houses appeared to be occupied.

Although London's population has grown in recent years it's still below pre-WW2 levels.

Mistigirl - it's not
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31082941

"London's population hits 8.6m record high"

fourmummy: you're right, it's now about the same as in 1939 (a statistic which astonished me, as a Londoner for over 30 years - I had no idea that London was proportionately bigger, as a centre of population, in the pre-war years). It would be interesting to know how much property is empty or under-occupied but it seems like stats are hard to come by. Population growth isn't the only reason for high housing costs: my Dad lives in a village where locals have been priced out of the market, and many homes are now empty for 50 weeks a year.

Given that population growth is outstripping demand for housing (and other public services) in many areas, what can we do? Build more houses/schools/hospitals/infrastructure - but who pays for this, and what about the environmental impact, valuable farmland and beauty spots disappearing forever under concrete?

Examples given of empty houses in various places - how would you get those houses occupied? Force people who want to live in London to move to Sunderland, because the council there have some spare capacity? Compulsory purchase of second homes?

Difficult thread because only 5 posters have added reasons. And a few of them only give one reason. But of those giving reasons to go out

better laws x 1
more flexible tax bands x 1
better trade deals x 1
more controlled immigration x 4

And all these "reasons" are of course just assumptions/wishful thinking

It's clear that brexit would allow more control of immigration - though it's not easy to see how it allows better border controls, which is not at all the same thing. The OP was unable to suggest a single way in whcih brexit would allow improved border controls.

Better laws? More flexible taxes? Better trade deals? Anyone want to give a concrete example and tell us how they are "better"?

Was reading this article last night, www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/29/could-italy-be-the-unlikely-saviour-of-project-europe and all I could think was 'What a bloody nightmare'. These are the first few paragraphs (yes, I'm aware of the biases but we have to read something):

As the European Union begins to disintegrate, who can provide the leadership to save it? German chancellor Angela Merkel is widely credited with finally answering Henry Kissinger’s famous question about the Western alliance: “What is the phone number for Europe?” But if Europe’s phone number has a German dialling code, it goes through to an automated answer: “Nein zu Allem.” This phrase – “No to everything” – is how Mario Draghi, the European Central Bank president, recently described the standard German response to all economic initiatives aimed at strengthening Europe. A classic case was Merkel’s veto of a proposal by Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi to fund refugee programmes in Europe, North Africa, and Turkey through an issue of EU bonds, an efficient and low-cost idea also advanced by leading financiers such as George Soros. Merkel’s high-handed refusal even to consider broader European interests if these threaten her domestic popularity has become a recurring nightmare for other EU leaders. This refusal underpins not only her economic and immigration policies, but also her bullying of Greece, her support for coal subsidies, her backing of German carmakers over diesel emissions, her kowtowing to Turkey on press freedom, and her mismanagement of the Minsk agreement in Ukraine. In short, Merkel has done more to damage the EU than any living politician, while constantly proclaiming her passion for “the European project”

So what is Merkel's 'European Project'? How mysterious. We still don't know! Utter shambles

fourmummy there are many people who are critical of Merkel's handling of these issues, but who are also against brexit. The author of that piece (who is a serious writer on economic issues) also wrote the following in a recent article:

Ultimately, Brexit would not only force a disruptive renegotiation of economic relations; it would also lead to a loss of political sovereignty for Britain.

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/why-britain-wont-vote-to-leave-the-eu

I know Kaletsky's writing and I follow it (when time permits). I am not so much presenting his specific viewpoint in this article as the general issue that we actually don't even know what this 'Project Europe' is. It's written about in single quotation marks, without any lengthy explanations, with scant details. There is much technical material available but I have never seen a bullet-pointed taxonomy of what it actually is. We have 'visions' as in, Merkel's 'vision' for Europe - but precious few details. What is her vision? Is there a definitive 'vision'? Does Cameron have one? The more I read, the more I realise that we actually seem to know very little about this 'Project Europe', and it's something I'd like to get clear in my head.

I would guess that the "European project" means different things for different people - for the UK, which has been a staunch opposer of closer union and has remained outside Schenghen, clearly it has a different meaning to Merkel's vision.

Probably the French would have a view that is at odds with both the Germans and the British - the row over TTIP makes this clear. It looks like the French may boycott it, whereas I think I'm right in saying that that the Brits and Germans would happily sign up for it. Compared to the British and the Germans, the French are much more protectionist (in trade terms) - a different vision of Europe, again.

Major decisions about Europe always require unanimity, so while Germany may have the largest influence (which isn't wholly unfair since it's also by far the largest net contributor), they certainly don't have the last or only word on what the "european project" is.

Mistigirl - I would agree that that's about the long and the short of it, and this lack of unanimous definition makes me nervous. I don't actually know what I am voting to remain in - whose vision, which features, what aspects? It's an entity that seems to have no shape or borders.

I read the OP's "Control our own borders" point as meaning controlling who comes through them, and for what purpose. As well as continuing the obvious anti-terrorism measures, the UK could limit economic migration according to whatever rules we decide to put in place.

I read the OP's "Control our own borders" point as meaning controlling who comes through them, and for what purpose. As well as continuing the obvious anti-terrorism measures, the UK could limit economic migration according to whatever rules we decide to put in place

As the OP, I can clarify.

I wrote those 'rights' as 5 bullet points for ease of reference. Each bullet point obviously encompasses a number of issues.

In the case of Control our borders, you will find that REMAIN campaigner insist we currently control our borders, because we have passport control and are outside the Schengen area.

That is a facile description of 'controlling borders' and omits a whole raft of rights that are also part of controlling your own borders effectively such as the rights to:

1. decide who enters the country - at present different standard of test are set for non-EU and EU arrivals. The Home Secretary finds it very difficult to exclude or bar any EU citizen from entry as to do so would infringe that EU citizen's right to come to the UK. The Home Secretary must have very good grounds to do so before refusing entry to an EU citizen. In the case of criminality, for example, a conviction even for a serious crime in not good enough - the EU citizen must pose a current risk.

2. decide who to come here to live and work - at present the UK must allow any of the 550 million EU citizens the right to come and live and work in the UK, if they wish to do so. The downside is that in an attempt to control overall (EU and non-EU) migration to the EU the Government is raising the salary qualification for non-EU migrants who wish to live in the Uk, thus depriving the UK of some people from outside the EU whose skills the country needs

3. the UK cannot deport EU citizens at the end of the prison sentences - because, as we saw at 1) above, they have the right to live in the UK unless they pose 'a current risk'.

4. recently the European Court of Justice ruled that an EU citizen who wishes to come to the UK can bring their non-EU partner with them, however a British person (who is also an EY citizen) cannot bring their non-EU partner into the UK without satisfying the salary qualification - which leads to separated families.

So that simple 'right to control your borders' actually unpacks a whole raft of issues , some of which I've tried to expand above.

The same applied to the other 4 rights I listed in my OP.

It's an entity that seems to have no shape or borders

Exactly. Which is why is is wrong to call it the European Project.

A project has boundaries. This entity has none.

This is a European Experiment - something that no one knows how will it will turn out.

And that's what makes it scary.

I read the OP's "Control our own borders" point as meaning controlling who comes through them, and for what purpose. As well as continuing the obvious anti-terrorism measures, the UK could limit economic migration according to whatever rules we decide to put in place.

Those are two different things, though - someone can arrive and pass through a border entirely legally, only to overstay their welcome. Most illegal immigrants in the UK entered the country legally.

I agree that "controlling borders" means "controlling who comes through them", and I'm genuinely interested to know how the Leave campaign thinks that it will be possible for UK border control officials to distinguish between "unwelcome" Europeans, and ordinary, harmless travellers: business people, tourists, and EU citizens already settled in Britain who are simply returning home.

This will become particularly difficult if current arrangements to share police information are compromised.

Regain our democracy and sovereignty
All our laws made in the UK by British representatives only, and can't be trumped by EU laws
Laws that can be repealed in the UK if they're no longer working
No more having to send to Brussels MEPs who can't propose legislation
More say for small and medium sized businesses (large corporations lobby the EU often to get regulations to suit themselves)
Our fishing waters returned to us, regenerating the fishing trade and communities
Support Britain's farmers. Their unions claim that "remain" is best, but most farmers would like us to leave the EU Exclusive: Survey reveals 58% of farmers back EU exit
A permanent opt-out from all EU initiatives such as the EU army, the euro, ever closer union etc.
Pursue bilateral trade agreements with other economically thriving countries such as China, Japan, the US, India and Brazil
Support NATO and our top quality armed forces, instead of an EU army
Set a precedent for other countries to leave and reject the planned federal EU "The United States of Europe"
Accept migrants from around the world with the skills Britain needs on an equal footing to EU migrants

Sounds very positive to me Winter, I think I'll LEAVE.

I'm genuinely interested to know how the Leave campaign thinks that it will be possible for UK border control officials to distinguish between "unwelcome" Europeans, and ordinary, harmless travellers: business people, tourists, and EU citizens already settled in Britain who are simply returning home.

No takers?

The saddest thing about this "debate" is that people have been fooled into believing that endlessly repeating empty slogans is having a debate. No one wants to answer any difficult questions.

Tourists and business people are welcome. We already have anti-terrorism measures in place (not perfect, but at least we have some, unlike the zero measures on the France-Belgium border which allowed the Paris-Brussels terrorists the freedom to cross and recross that border with their bombs and weapons).

Anyone can pose as a tourist. But if they arrive as a tourist, then attempt to get a job, claim benefits or social housing, we will be able to stop that.